/Filmcast E-Mails

Armond White and the Democratization of Film Criticism

Dear Dave, Adam and Devindra,

I just listened to the /Filmcast After Dark featuring Armond White and I really enjoyed it. There were some things though with which I don’t necessarily have an issue, but about which I wish I had more clarity.

I liked how Adam challenged Armond about his comments on “Toy Story 3” when Armond said that most people were just bowing at the altar of Pixar and Adam asked about the reaction to “Cars 2” and then there was this incredibly deafening silence.

I also liked how Armond said that most critics know or at least most critics should know that works of art are generally not appreciated in their time and that art history teaches us that big hits fade, while least appreciated works usually stand as the best. Yes, that is generally true, but I didn’t think that the argument was whether or not “Toy Story 3” will stand the test of time as art to be appreciated forever. I thought the argument was whether or not it was a good piece of entertainment and craft-work that will connect emotionally with its viewers.

“Toy Story 3” didn’t play in limited release in art-house theaters only. It played on a massive wide release with the intention of being a piece of entertainment for families. I don’t think it was made with the intention of winning an Oscar and being considered great art for all time. If people want to think that way, I wouldn’t argue, but what Armond failed to mention is that art is also subjective. Art is not science. It can’t be measured and all together intellectualized or sometimes even reasoned. Art is mostly emotion and visceral. It’s about what people feel, not necessarily what they think, although thinking is important.

I understand Armond’s point about cultural heritage and cultural legacy. He builds almost every argument on comparing something with something else that came before it. It makes me curious as to what he would have said about “Toy Story 3,” if, for example, “Robots” and “Small Soldiers” didn’t exist. What if these two previous films hadn’t been made? Is his opinion of something always conditional on something else? Can nothing be judged or understood on its own and by its own terms and merits? Is Armond’s reviews nothing more than a series of similes, strung one after the other? Are some films only good because they came out first? If “Robots” had come out after “Toy Story 3,” what would his opinion of it be?

I know that there is a lot more when it comes to film criticism. One must know about film theory, film language, etc. You should know about various camera angles, film stock, lighting, editing techniques, mise en scene, acting techniques, sound and music techniques and etc. Some reviewers or critics or even “Gentlemen amateurs” don’t consider these things and that’s a problem, but I don’t know that I agree with what he said that “you cannot democratize expertise” and that not everybody can do it.

If his point is that film criticism should have standards, then I agree. Yes, it should have standards, but, what are those standards? Is one of the standards having a Master’s degree like Armond has because if so then I suppose someone say like Alfred Hitchcock could never be a film critic. He hasn’t a film degree. He never went to film school, so what could he possibly know about films? Armond said that he “studied” film, but so what? So do a lot of people, just not necessarily in the same way! Quentin Tarantino “studied” film as well. Was it at Columbia University? No. Was it at any university? No. It didn’t stop him from getting two Oscar nominations in directing. Same for Steven Soderbergh! How did they do it? For Tarantino, all he did was watch movies. To study films, nowadays, all you need is a NetFlix account. That alone doesn’t qualify you to be a film critic, but I just don’t agree with his democratization of expertise when it comes to film criticism or film-making for that matter.

No, I wouldn’t want someone who watches “ER” to think they can come in and be a doctor, but again understanding or even making movies nowadays doesn’t require that kind of scientific know-how. I don’t mean to demean films as an art. Nor do It mean to attack Armond. I actually enjoy his spirit and discussions, and I’m all for smarter conversations, or even more technical ones when it comes to films, but ultimately it seems, when it comes to film criticism, Armond wants to narrow the field not expand.

One question I would have loved to ask Armond and one which I suppose I can pose to you, Dave, Adam and Devindra, is whether or not an actual discussion about a film where you were talking with someone who disagreed with your opinion changed that opinion. In other words, in the course of a film discussion did someone change your mind about a film that at one point that you had a firm opinion about? I would be thoroughly surprised if that ever happened to Armond White, but who knows? He just seems like the kind of person that once he’s made an opinion about something, nothing will ever change it, even overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

-Marlon from MD